Protons, Neutrons, & Mormons

Complementarity. In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation (Fig. 1). It isnot that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.

Entanglement. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a proton, neutron or Mormon: the act of observing cannot be separated from the outcome of the observation. By asking Mitt Romney how he feels about an issue, you unavoidably affect how he feels about it. More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker.

The best part about the column is that it could have been published anywhere in 1996 with little change about Bill Clinton, in conservative publications in 2004 about George W. Bush, in liberal publications in 2012 about Barack Obama, and so on and so forth. Politicians are by necessity more, um, “flexible” than many of their supporters want. Some are just more transparent/slimy/your-adjective-of-choice-here about it. It’d be nice if we could all not care about these jokers, but when the federal government accounts for a quarter of the economy and wants to keep swallowing more and more, we don’t have that luxury anymore.

PS. The final line of the column is a massive mistake, in my opinion. It really jars the reader out of the “let’s all get a chuckle out of teasing silly ol’ Mitt” mood unnecessarily. Big gaffe by the writer and editor (if there even is one anymore).

“More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker.”

For those who’ve lived out west, and have lived among the Mormons, they know that the above isn’t just characteristic of Mitt Romney, but to LDS participants as a whole. If you look at its history, the LDS church has changed on certain issues with the times. It rejected plural marriage in favor of statehood in Utah. And more recently, under its discipline policy, it does permit abortion for cases of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother (i.e. the Roe v. Wade standard). The LDS will say they are Christian monotheists to some and to others they will admit via the King Follet discourse of Joseph Smith that they are polytheists. They will argue that such contradictory positions are not incoherent and inconsistent. They call this “milk before meat.”

So it shouldn’t be suprising that Romney is the candidate he is. In actuality, Romney is not inconsistent with his faith when he took his abortion position in Massachussetts. His current “pro-life” position, well that’s just consistent with the general incoherence of LDS belief. Say one thing to one person, and a contradictory thing to another is LDS life.

Romney is a good representation of an LDS church goer, and he is attempting to fulfill the dream of Joseph Smith that one day a Mormon would be President of the U.S. To do that Mormons know they have to “please the asker.”

I think “Brian” is really missing something. Certainly politicians must be somewhat flexible, and messrs Bush, Clinton, Bush-2, Obama are all adept at the art. However, Mr. Romney’s ‘flexibility’ is so grotesque and dishonest as to be in a class of it’s own. If this article had been written about the last several presidents (in fact, I suspect about any of our presidents), the readers would be scratching their heads and saying “really?”

Well, you obviously didn’t read CK’s stunningly brilliant dissertation on the ways in which Mitt Romney’s political positioning exposes the breathtakingly hypocritical nature of Mormonism, in much the same way that Newt Gingrich’s life proves the philandering nature of Christians, and Andrew Sullivan’s life exposes the homosexual nature of Catholicism.

Re: And more recently, under its discipline policy, it does permit abortion for cases of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother (i.e. the Roe v. Wade standard).

Um, that’s very far from the Roe v. Wade standard. Effectively, Roe v. Wade permits abortion on demand at early stages, and abortion for any number of very broadly defined medical conditions (even ones that aren’t particularly serious) later on.

I have no particular brief for Mormonism, but that’s silly. As far as I know, even some fairly pro-life Christian churches (not the Catholic church) allow exceptions when there are serious threats to the mother.

one lazy dog writes: “Certainly politicians must be somewhat flexible, and messrs Bush, Clinton, Bush-2, Obama are all adept at the art. However, Mr. Romney’s ‘flexibility’ is so grotesque and dishonest as to be in a class of it’s own.”

“Well, you obviously didn’t read CK’s stunningly brilliant dissertation on the ways in which Mitt Romney’s political positioning exposes the breathtakingly hypocritical nature of Mormonism, in much the same way that Newt Gingrich’s life proves the philandering nature of Christians, and Andrew Sullivan’s life exposes the homosexual nature of Catholicism.”

Here’s the difference. Mitt Romney’s actions are indicative of Mormon doctrine. New Gingrich’s and Andrew Sullivan’s actions are antithetical to Christian doctrine. And I never said “Mormonism” was “hypocritical”, what I said was that LDS doctrine is incoherent and that Romney’s actions are indicative of such incoherence.

“what I said was that LDS doctrine is incoherent and that Romney’s actions are indicative of such incoherence.”

And if you had any @#[email protected]#$ clue what you were talking about, that would be meaningful. I’d be glad to address any ideas in Mormonism that you believe conflict with one another and synthesize them for you. But I could be forgiven for thinking that you are less interested in understanding LDS beliefs than in using one politician’s actions as a way of satisfying your own personal need to bash Mormons.

MC, my understanding of Mormon theology and practice is that it claims to have a living prophet, the Church President, who has a special relationship with God.

Because of this – again according to my understanding – when that prophet claims a direct revelation from God, such as happened in 1978 when black men were admitted to the priesthood, the laity is expected to accept and follow the revelation without question.

Now, for those who believe that this relationship really exists, such an event is a joyous revelation from God through the leader of their Church.

For those who do not believe this relationship exists, such an event is a pragmatic change in policy imposed on the laity with compliance enforced by claims of special authority.

Some see Romney’s claimed changes in political positions as similar pragmatic responses to circumstance.

MC, a sincere question about Mormon theology. From my outsider’s understanding Mormons view humans as having the potential to become Gods. Indeed God the father was once human himself and still retains a body. To me this conception of God is in conflict with other Christian theology that views God as the uncaused cause. This is because if God was once human did a God create him? If that God was once human how do you avoid Gods all the way down?

Full disclosure I’m not religious and view the universe itself as the first uncaused cause.

“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it.

“Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together.”

I don’t doubt that those who reject our prophet’s authority see the changes in Church policy to be a hypocritical pragmatic shift. But given that Mormons DO believe in that revelation, how are the rank-and-file being duplicitous? Are we all assuming that Mitt Romney doesn’t REALLY believe in those revelations?

Your questions go much deeper than “orthodox” (in the Church we call it “correlated”) Mormon doctrine really delves. It is a rock-solid Mormon belief that God has a body. There are some teachings from early Church leaders implying that God was once a mortal man, but that view is not now and has never been universal among Mormons, although I think I can safely say that it is widely accepted. I don’t think many Mormons think too deeply about what that means for the origins of the universe, any more than most Christians think about the “uncaused cause”. Those Mormons who have thought about it have their own opinions, as do I, but I’m not comfortable pointing out any one as being the “typical” answer.

Certainly, to the extent that Mormonism is open to the idea that God was not “uncreated” it conflicts with the Nicene Creed. Whether that means we are not Christian depends on whether you take creedal Christianity to be the standard of whether a religion is “Christian”. We believe that God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the price for our sins on the cross and be resurrected so that we might live again. I think that in most people’s standard conception of Christianity that makes us Christians, although others obviously disagree.

As I told MH above, Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of mankind through His suffering on the cross. You might believe that is insufficient to make us “Christians.” So be it. But the fact that our beliefs conflict with your own personal, preferred definition of “Christian” hardly makes our profession to be Christian “incoherent”.

There is a perfectly coherent way of defining “Christian” in such a way that it extends to Mormons. In fact, it is the definition accepted by 51% of Americans, as opposed to 32% who disagree:

Now of course, you can argue that the majority of Americans have an “incoherent” belief that Mormons are Christian. But then you would have no basis for arguing that the belief of Mitt Romney and other Mormons that they are Christian is somehow “incoherent” in a way that distinguishes them from the rest of America.

I’ve been getting non-stop robocalls from the Romney team for the last two weeks, sometimes five in one day. Most of them tried to convince me that Santorum was a liberal. Much as I despise liberals, if Santorum were a liberal, that would improve my opinion of him. On the other hand, Romney’s pounding on the theme that Santorum was in bed with Big Labor and had (gasp!) voted against right-to-work-for-less laws, has probably eviscerated whatever working class vote Santorum might have whipped up for the Republican Party this year. Sure, there are working class voters who love their unions AND are highly concerned with Family Values, but Romney can’t hold them; in fact, he is already repelling them.

The robo-calls didn’t matter — I had already decided to vote for Ron Paul, and did so. In the fall, I will vote for President Obama. Mitt’s father, George Romney, would have made a great president — and he also was a Mormon. Mitt is an empty shirt whose platform amounts to “I really admire the thought of me being president, and my wife does too.” I don’t care what theology he believes in, as long as he doesn’t make calls to the President of the Council of Twelve in Salt Lake City before making decisions. Come to think of it, in Mitt’s case, I might be reassured if he did exactly that — which is might cold comfort.

After clicking on the link and reading the entire article, I can only ask:

How could anyone expect Romney to win an election now? The Obama campaign can shut down its fundraising efforts. All they need is enough money to runoff 900 million copies of “A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney,” mailing a copy to each American on August 1, October 1, and November 1, while maintaining a single web page which links to the original piece on the New York Times web site, perhaps working out a deal with the TIMES to allow free access and bill the Obama campaign fifty cents per click.